Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:09:40.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Devilish Pope: Eugenius IV as Lucifer in the Later Works of Juan de Segovia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Jesse D. Mann
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Early in his career, when he still trusted in the power of councils to effect reform, Martin Luther wrote: [The Romanists] are not empowered to prohibit a council or, according to their pleasure, to determine its decisions in advance, to bind it and to rob it of freedom. But if they do so, I hope to have shown that of a truth they belong to the community of Antichrist and the devil.” Some seventy years before Luther's appeal to the German nobility, however, the Spanish theologian and noted conciliarist, Juan de Segovia, who championed the authority of councils throughout his career, had already drawn a more startling connection between the chief “Romanist” opponent of councils and the spiritual adversaries of Christendom. For, in several works written in the 1450s, Segovia identified Pope Eugenius IV with Lucifer.

Type
Articles
Information
Church History , Volume 65 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 184 - 196
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Luther, Martin, An Appeal to the Ruling Class of German Nationality as to the Amelioration of the State of Christendom (1520), trans. Woolf, Bertram Lee, in Martin Luther: Selections from his Writings, ed. Dillenberger, John (New York, 1961), p. 417.Google ScholarThe original German text is found in D. Martin Luther's Werke; kritische Gesammtausgabe (Weimar, 1883–), 6:415.Google ScholarFor more on Luther's views regarding the authority of councils, see Edwards, Mark U. Jr, Luther's Last Battles: Politics and Polemics, 1531–46 (Ithaca, N.Y., 1983), pp. 68–96;Google Scholarand especially Johns, Christa Tecklenburg, Luthers Konzilidee in ihrer historischen Bedingtheit und ihrem reformatorischen Neuansatz (Berlin, 1966).Google Scholar

2. Segovia briefly describes this mission to Rome in the prologue to his library donation to the University of Salamanca (1457);Google Scholarsee Montes, Benigno Hernandez, Biblioteca de Juan de Segovia: Edición y comentario de su escritura de donación, Biblioteca Theologica Hispana, ser. 2: textos, 3 (Madrid, 1984), p. 81: “anno Domini MCCCCXXI una cum celebri legum doctore Yuone Mauri constitutus fui ambassiator ad papam Martinum quintum et pro rotulo obtinendo graciarum expectatiuarum et pro eo quod ualencioris continencie fuitque majoris laboris, habendis noviter, quibus Universitas ipsa perpetuo regeretur, apostolicis constitucionibus.” (“In 1421, together with that celebrated doctor of law Ibo Moro, I was sent as an ambassador to Pope Martin V to obtain the rotolus and—what required greater restraint as well as more labor—to obtain the new apostolic constitutions by which that university [i.e., Salamancus] was always to be governed.”) For valuable additional information pertaining to Segovia's missionGoogle Scholar, see Ibid., pp. 131–135; and Diener, Hermann, “Zur Persönlichkeit des Johannes von Segovia: Ein Beitrag zur Methode des Auswertung päpstlicher Register des späten Mittelalters,” Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 44 (1964): 307.Google ScholarThe 1422 constitutions of the Universidad de Salamanca have been edited in Urbano, Pedrode la Calle, González and Huarte, Amalioy Echenique, eds., Consiitutiones de la Universidad de Salamanca (1422) (Madrid, 1927).Google Scholar

3. Diener, , pp. 307–310.Google ScholarSee also Hernández, , Biblioteca, pp. 126–128.Google Scholar

4. Hernández, , Biblioteca, pp. 81, 135–139;Google Scholarand Diener, , pp. 310–311.Google Scholar

5. Hernández, , Biblioteca, p. 136;Google Scholarand Diener, , p. 311.Google Scholar

6. On Segovia at Basel, see Fromherz, Uta, Johannes von Segovia als Geschiehtsschreiber des Konzils von Basel (Basel, Switzerland, 1960), pp. 23–37;Google ScholarBlack, Antony J., Council and Commune: The Conciliar Movement and the Fifteenth-Century Heritage (London, 1979), pp. 119–123;Google Scholarand Krämer, Werner, Konsens und Rezeption: Verfassungsprinzipien der Kirche im Basler Konziliarismus (Münster, Germany, 1980), chap. 5.Google Scholar

7. Fromherz, , pp. 32–33 and nn. 121–122.Google ScholarSee also Monumenta conciliorum generalium seculi decimi quinti, ed. Caesarae Academiae Scientiarum socii delegati, 4 vols. (Vienna/Basel, 1857–1935), 3:426 [hereafter cited as MC].Google Scholar

8. Felix V made Segovia a cardinal on 12 October 1440; see Fromherz, p. 33 and n. 124 (which cites MC 3:514);Google ScholarDiener, , p. 322;Google Scholarand Black, , p. 121Google Scholarand n. 36 (which cites Haller, Johannes et al. , eds., Concilium Basiliense [Basel, 1896–1936; repr. Nendeln, Liechtenstein, 1971], 8:262; hereafter cited as CB).Google ScholarOn Segovia and papal finances, see Fromherz, , p. 33;Google Scholarand MC 3:1243. Felix left Basel for Lausanne in 1442.Google Scholar

9. Hernández, , Biblioteca, pp. 80, 124;Google ScholarFromherz, , p. 38;Google Scholarand Diener, , pp. 332–344.Google Scholar

10. McGinn, Bernard, “Angel Pope and Papal Antichrist,” Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture 47 (1978): 156, dates the first instance to the Synod of Reims (991).CrossRefGoogle ScholarIn his Visions of the End: Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages, (New York, 1979), p. 34, McGinn notes that apocalyptic, including the notion of the Papal Antichrist, could be and was used as an element of critique of the papacy.Google Scholar

11. See McGinn, , Visions, p. 31: “theologians and students of the history of religions should also be prepared to admit how inextricably apocalypticism is intermingled with the ‘political’ sphere at all times.” In the course of the investiture controversy, for example, Rupert of Deutz invoked Apocalypse 12 in order to stigmatize Henry IV as the satanic dragon; see the translation of Rupert's poem, “The Calamities of the Church of Liége,” in McGinn, Visions, pp. 97–98.Google ScholarSee also Kamlah, Wilhelm, Apokalypse und Geschichtstheologie: Die mittelalterliche Auslegung der Apokalypse vor Joachim von Fiore, (Berlin, 1935; repr. Vaduz, 1965), p. 98.Google Scholar For some general remarks on the Michaelstreit in medieval theology, see Ibid., p. 61. The fundamental work on the exegesis of Apocalypse 12 remains Prigent's Apocalypse 12: Histoire de I'éxegése (Tübingen, Germany, 1959).Google Scholar

12. This view is common in older, now outdated, scholarship. For some examples, see Fromherz, pp. 39–40.Google Scholar

13. The emphasis on continuity seems to derive from Fromherz, p. 39.Google ScholarFor instance, Diener, p. 331: “Der so häufig gesehene Bruch in seinem [i.e., Segovia] Leben, hervorgerufen durch das Scheitern des Basler Konzils, existiert nicht” (“The frequently alleged ‘break’ in Segovia's life, which stems from the failure of the Council of Basel, simply does not exist.”)Google ScholarSee also Krämer, , p. 248: “Von einer Wende oder einer ‘Bekehrung’ kann aber nicht gesprochen werden.” (“One cannot speak of a change or conversion.”)Google Scholar

14. See Hernández, , Biblioteca, p. 64;Google Scholarand Black, p. 123.Google Scholar

15. Segovia's Historia has been edited in MC, vols. 2–3. This edition leaves much to be desired, and the need for a new one has long been felt.Google Scholar

16. On this Epistola, see Mann, Jesse D., “Juan de Segovia's Epistola ad Guillielmum de Orliaco: Who was Guillielmus de Orliaco?” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 62 (1992): 175–193.Google Scholar

17. For this dating, see Montes, Benigno Hernández, “Obras de Juan de Segovia,” Repertorio de historia de las ciencias eclesiástkas en España 6 (1977): 309.Google ScholarKrämer, , p. 252Google Scholar, states that Segovia began this work “kurz vor seinem Tod” (“shortly before his death”).Google ScholarBlack, , p. 123Google Scholar, on the contrary dates the Liber to the 1440s but offers no rationale for doing so; he also refers to this work mistakenly as Liber de sancta (rather than substantia) ecclesiae. On this pointGoogle Scholar, see Hernández, , “Obras,” p. 310;Google Scholarand Krämer, , p. 252 n. 108.Google ScholarFor more on this work, see Krämer, , pp. 252–253;Google Scholarand Hernández, , Biblioteca, pp. 243–246.Google ScholarThere is a striking degree of similarity, both in content and formulation, between this tract and Segovia's Epistola ad Guillielmum de Orliaco.Google Scholar

18. On this dating, see Krämer, , p. 248 n. 99;Google Scholarand Hernández, , Biblioteca, pp. 175–178.Google Scholar

19. DeKegel, Rolf, Johannes von Segovia, Liber de magna auctoritate episcoporum in concilia generali, (Fribourg, Germany, 1995).Google Scholar

20. MC 2:575–579: “hinc super huiusmodi controversia presidencie factum est prelium magnum in celo” (p. 577).Google Scholar

21. MC 2:575: “in celo empireo, dum ecclesia inibi militaret, premaxima contencio facta est inter celestes spiritus, quis angelis et hominibus presideret, agnus Dei, filius beatissime virginis, aut Lucifer.”Google Scholar

22. For a concise discussion of this debate, see Bond, H. Lawrence, Christianson, Gerald, and Izbicki, Thomas M., “Nicholas of Cusa: On Presidential Authority in a General Council,” Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture 59 (1990): 19–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarFor a more detailed treatment, together with an edition of Segovia's Super presidencia, see Ladner, Pascal, “Johannes von Segovias Stellung zur Präsidentenfrage des Basler Konzils,” Zeitschrift für schweizerische Kirchengeschkhte 62 (1968): 1–113.Google ScholarLadner's edition has been criticized by Krämer, , pp. 209–211.Google Scholar

23. MC 2:577–578.Google Scholar

24. MC 2:579: “Quorum exemplo, ne auctoritas generalium conciliorum redigeretur in servitutem, sancta Basiliensis synodus restitit.”Google Scholar

25. MC 3:810–819.Google Scholar

26. For the full text, see MC 3:695–941. On this amplificatioGoogle Scholar, see Hernández, , “Obras,” pp. 304–305.Google Scholar

27. The distinction between the Devil and Antichrist in regard to Apocalypse 12 dates from at least the third century; see Prigent, p. 9.Google Scholar

28. According to Russell, Jeffrey Burton, Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages (Ithaca, N.Y., 1984), pp. 11–12:Google Scholar“The name ‘Lucifer’ was born through the association of the great prince of Isaiah 14, the morning star, Helel-ben-Shahar, who falls from the heavens through his pride, with the cherub of Ezekiel 28, who was ‘perfect in his ways from the day he was created until iniquity was found in him,’ and of both with Satan, prince of this world and obstructor of the kingdom of God. Exactly when the three concepts came together is uncertain, but Origen treated them as a unity in the third century.”Google Scholar

29. MC 3:811: “Lucifer dux et princeps erat nominatus … constitutis sub eo angelorum ordinibus universis.”Google Scholar

30. MC 3:817: “cum princeps esset et velut summus pontifex angelorum, quia primus ierarcha in spiritualibus a Deo constitutes.” (“But it is evident that before this war began there was a governing power in the church of the angels which sacred scriptures attributes to the first angel.”)Google Scholar

31. MC 3:816: “Sed et ante inicium belli huius fuisse in ecclesia ipsa angelorum regitivam potestatem patet ex multiplici appellacione, quam scriptura sacra attribuit illorum prime”Google Scholar

32. Ibid.: “Utrum vero hec potestas in eo fuerit solum et ab eo ordinata in alios ita ut revocare posset pro libito voluntatis, vel utrum primo et per se societati communi adesset remansura in illis, qui societatis unitatem seruarent, demonstrat pugna ipsa angelorum.”

33. MC 3:817: “cum princeps esset et velut summus pontifex anelorum, … si ita est, ut dicunt, competere summo pontifici neminem posse ei dicere: ‘Cur ita fads’, quomodo igitur Michaeli ceterisque angelis auctoritas competebat ei non solum non obedire, sed resistere et pugnare adversus seum ac vincere?” On the phrase “cur ita facis” in Tancred and other canonistsGoogle Scholar, see Tierney, Brian, Foundations of the Conciliar Theory (Cambridge, U.K., 1955), p. 88.Google Scholar

34. MC 3:817.Google Scholar

35. MC 3:815: “Verbis profecto istis semper ac magis elucidantibus prelii magni illius fuisse causam super Christi principatu, Lucifero illum usurpare volente.” (“These words clearly show that the issue in this great battle was Christ's authority, which Lucifer wanted to usurp.”)Google Scholar

36. MC 3:813: “Quo verbo manifeste significat apostotasse eum a recta fide, quam primo habuerat.” (“This manifestly indicates that he had apostatized from the right faith which he formerly had held.”)Google Scholar

37. For more on the council's view of Eugenius's second dissolution (Doctoris gentium, 1437)Google Scholar, see Mann, Jesse D., “The Historian and the Truths: Juan de Segovia's Explanatio de tribus veritatibus fidei,” (University of Chicago, Ph.D. diss., 1993), chaps. 3 and 5.Google Scholar

38. University of Salamanca Library, MS 202, fol. 179r. The description of Lucifer as an apostate, indeed even the first apostate, was common among patristic and medieval theologians;Google Scholarsee, for example, Martyr, Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 103;Google ScholarIrenaeus, Adversus Haereses 5.21; and Gregory the Great, Moralia in Iob 12.36, 34.3–6.Google Scholar

39. See, for example, Anselm of Canterbury, Anselmi Cantuariensis archiepiscopi opera omnia, ed. Schmitt, F. S., (Edinburgh, 1946–1961), 1:235, 266, 271.Google Scholar

40. University of Salamanca Library, MS 202, fol. 178r: “omnibus aliis erat [i.e., Lucifer] excellencior.” Again, the notion of Lucifer as the supreme angel has a long and venerable history among Christian theologians.Google ScholarOn this point, see Russell, Jeffrey Burton, Satan: The Early Christian Tradition (Ithaca, N.Y., 1981), pp. 92–93 nn. 38–39 (Tertullian);Google Scholarand Russell, , Lucifer, pp. 74, 173.Google Scholar

41. University of Salamanca Library, MS 202, fol. 178r: “Etenim cupivit omnibus libere absque ulla subieccione sui, quia vero hoc, videlicet aliis presidere, diligitur amore concupiscencie. Et hie amor presidencie, ut quis omnibus presit et non subsit Deo, profecto inordinatus est omni plenus cecitate. Et sic fuit in Lucifero.“ (“And indeed he desired to rule over all unrestrictedly and to be subject to no one, since this, namely to preside over others, is loved with possessive love. This inordinate love of presiding, such that one might rule over all and not be subject to God, is full of every blindness. And so it was with Lucifer.”)Google Scholar

42. University of Salamanca Library, MS 202, fol. 178v: “Hunc [i.e., Christ], cum cognovisset [i.e., Lucifer] talem esse futurum tamquam suo iudicio usurpaturam earn, quam ipse nimium cupiebat, omnimodam presidenciam, odio habens, ira exarsit in eum, cupiens occidere eum.” (“Lucifer hated Christ since he knew that Christ was the one who was, in his [i.e., Lucifer's] view, going to ‘usurp’ what Lucifer himself excessively desired, namely complete command; and he became inflamed with anger against Christ and wanted to kill him.”)Google Scholar

43. On Lucifer's envy of Christ in Lactantius and other patristic theologians, see Revard, Stella Purce, The War in Heaven: ‘Paradise Lost’ and the Tradition of Satan's Rebellion (Ithaca, N.Y., 1980), pp. 67–69.Google ScholarRevard writes: “Envy of Satan for the Son is a subordinate note throughout early Christianity…. The third-century Christian father Lactantius, however, had elaborated on Satan's role as the rival of the Son and had proposed that the rivalry was motivated by envy.”Google ScholarSee also Russell, , Satan, pp. 155–156.Google ScholarRussell, , Satan, p. 79, maintains that “Theophilus [died after 180] was the first to follow Wisdom 2:24 in emphasizing envy as the motive in Satan's fall.”Google ScholarOn this theme, see also Sans, Isidoro M., La enfidia primigenia del diablo según la patrística primitiva, Estudios Onienses, serie 3, vol. 6 (Madrid, 1963);Google Scholarand Kelly, Henry Ansgar, “The Devil in the Desert,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 26 (1964): 190–220.Google ScholarOn envy as the result of pride in Augustine, see Russell, , Satan, p. 214;Google Scholarand Forsyth, Neil, The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth (Princeton, N.J., 1987), pp. 428–429.Google ScholarOn Milton, see Revard and also Williams, Arnold, “The Motivation of Satan's Rebellion in Paradise Lost,” Studies in Philology 43 (1945): 253 and following, esp. 260–263.Google ScholarFor some insightful general comments on Milton's Satan, see Lewis, C. S., A Preface to Paradise Lost (London, 1942), pp. 92–100.Google Scholar

44. University of Salamanca Library, MS 202, fol. 178v.Google Scholar

45. The idea of a rival congregatio maligna may stem from the fourth-century Donatist, Tyconius (died about 400);Google Scholarsee Prigent, , p. 15.Google ScholarThis idea is probably not unrelated to Augustine's “Two Cities”;Google Scholarsee Lamirande, Emilien, L'église céleste selon saint Augustin (Paris, 1963), pp. 127–129.Google Scholar

46. Hernández, , Biblioteca, p. 98:Google Scholar“de prelio anelorum magno et sentencia contra Luciferum propter apostasiam a fide.” It should be noted that Black, p. 123, mentioned, but did not discuss, the connection in this work between Lucifer and the pope.Google Scholar

47. University of Salamanca Library, MS 55, fol. 21r: “Erat velus unicus et indubitatus pontifex summus quia fiusset primus sub Christo ordinator omnium in pertienetibus ad cultum Dei quod est proprie proprium summo pontifici aliorum respectuo episcoporum.”Google Scholar

48. University of Salamanca Library, MS 55, fol. 21v. “fuit Lucifer ille, qui in celo empireo militante inibi ecclesia a Deo sub Christo capite constitutus est primum ecclesie caput supremusve eius minister.” This passage has apparently been noted by Black, p. 123, although he does not cite this exact folio. Another instance in Segovia's work is found in MS 55, fol. 54v, where Lucifer is not only called minister supremus, but also “tocius ecclesie militantis in celo princeps protectorque primus magister ac doctor velutque pater patrum ac pontifex summus” (“prince, protector, first teacher and doctor, father of fathers, so to speak, and supreme pontiff of the entire church militant in heaven”).Google Scholar

49. Segovia himself calls the pope caput ministeriale in his Explanatio de tribus veritatibus fidei, composed in August 1439. See Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, MS 6606, fol. 222v. For additional examples from Segovia and others, see Krämer, index, s.v. “Papst.” In its important synodal epistle, Cogitanti (September 1432), the Council of Basel referred to the pope as caput et primus ecclesiae;Google Scholarsee Mansi, Johannes Domenicus, ed., Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio (Paris, 1901–1927) 29:245E.Google Scholar

50. University of Salamanca Library, MS 55, fol. 22v–23r: “prelium inter angelos formam trahit generalium conciliorum.”Google Scholar

51. Ibid., fol. 22v: “Etenim altricacio erat si Christus homo aut Lucifer spiritus futurus ecclesie caput, erat si una aut due future ecclesie: altera sub Christo, altera sub Lucifero.”

52. Ibid., fol. 26v.

53. Ibid., fol. 26r: “A cuius unitate dracho cum suis segregabant semetipsos principatum contra principatum statuere molientes et divine contravenientes ordinacioni qua voluit omnia subiecta esse sub pedibus Christi … ipsi ergo erant dividionis auctores atque scismatis tribunal contra tribunal statuentes et erigentes altare quod esse non poterat nisi sacrilegum propterea quod erigebatur contra altare legittimum.”

54. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, MS 6606, fol. 273v: “Nunc autem non satis fuit se diffinitive de facto privare aut negare concilium Basiliense, sed actu erigens [i.e., Eugenius] altare sacrilegum contra altare legitimum erexit Ferrarie conventiculum scismaticorum contra verum generale concilium.” (“Now it was not enough, however, that in the manner of a definitive sentence [Eugenius IV] should have de facto cut off and denied the existence of the Council of Basel; nay in actually erecting a sacrilegious altar against a legitimate one, he set up at Ferrara a conventicle of schismatics against a true general council.”) For more on the Explanatio, see Mann, “The Historian and the Truths.”Google Scholar

55. University of Salamanca Library, MS 55, fol. 39v and elsewhere.Google Scholar

56. For this point in De substantia, see Ibid., fol. 40r. Instances of this charge in Segovia's earlier works include Deutsche Reichstagsakten (Reihe, Älters), ed. Historische Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschraft (Munich/Stuttgart, 1867–), 13:552 [hereafter cited as DRTA]; Explanatio (Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, MS 6606, fol. 289r); 1441 Speech at Mainz (DRTA 15:749).Google ScholarSee also Mann, , “The Historian and the Truths,” 1:340;Google Scholarand Wohlmuth, Josef, Verstándigung in der Kirche: Untersucht an der Sprache des Konzils von Basel, (Mainz, Germany, 1983), p. 252.Google Scholar

57. University of Salamanca Library, MS 55, fol. 49v. On the identification of Michael and other angels loyal to Christ with the Baseleans, see esp. MS 55, fols. 54v–55v.Google Scholar

58. McGinn, , “Angel Pope,” pp. 172–173.Google Scholar

59. Interestingly, this very case is mentioned in the Ordinary Gloss to Gratian's Decretum (ad C.9 q. 3 c.14 Aliorum) which reads: “imo sine venia debet [papa] puniri, sicut diabolus, qui maximus comparatione aliorum creatus est, ut infra de poena dist. ii c. ‘principium.’” (“Indeed the pope should be punished without clemency, just like the Devil, who was the greatest of all creatures, as [indicated] below De poena, dist. 2, c. principium.” The Council of Constance included a reference to this gloss in its reform decree Romanus pontifex. The relevant section of this decree reads thus: “Si autem, quod absit, vita et moribut sit [i.e., the pope] peruersus, si oblitus dignitatis sue et relictis celestibus conuersus ad terrena dampnabilibus et capitalibus criminibus se inmisceat, considerat quod Lucifer quanto ceteris angelis clarior et perfectior est creatus, tanto ex peruersitate sua seuerius et irreparabilius est punitus.” (“However, if, God forbid, the pope should be perverse in life and morals; [and] if, forgetful of his dignity, having given up heavenly ways and having turned to earthly ways, he should commit more damnable and more serious crimes, he might consider that [precisely] because he was more brilliant and more perfect than the other angels, Lucifer was punished all the more severely and irreparably for his perversity.”)Google ScholarRomanus pontifex has been edited in Stump, Phillip H., The Reformers of the Council of Constance (1414–1418) (Leiden, The Netherlands, 1994); the passage cited here is found on p. 329, lines 16–20.Google Scholar For more on the decree, see Ibid., p. 132, esp. 134. I am grateful to Professor Stump for calling this text to my attention.

60. Prigent, , pp. 53–54Google Scholar, passes over the fifteenth century very quickly, referring only briefly to several of Segovia's contemporaries (Bernardino of Siena and Denis the Carthusian). He also mentions two late-fourteenth-century Hussite expositors (p. 55).Google ScholarFor more on Hussite exegesis of Apocalypse 12, see Molnar, Amedeo, “Apocalypse XII dans l'interprétation hussite,” Revue d'histoire et de philosophie religieuses 45 (1965): 212–231.Google Scholar

61. See, for example, Pseudo-Ambrose (who was Berengar, according to Prigent, p. 38 n. 1)Google Scholar, Expositio super septem visiones libri Apocalypsis, in Migne, J. P., ed., Patrologia Latina (Paris, 1844–1864), 17:877–878 [hereafter cited as PL]; he interprets Michael as Christ and Michael's angels as the apostles.Google ScholarThe same interpretation is found in Pseudo-Augustine (who was Caesarius of Aries), PL 35:2434. Patrides, C. A., Milton and the Christian Tradition (Oxford, 1966), p. 260 n. 4, notes that “Michael was often regarded as a ‘type’ of the Christ to come.” Indeed, in his The Christian Doctrines, John Milton wrote that interpreters of Apocalypse 12:7 generally identify Michael as Christ;Google Scholarsee Dobbins, Austin C., Milton and the Book of Revelation: The Heavenly Cycle, (University, Ala., 1975), p. 30.Google ScholarThe Shepherd of Hernias (second century), on the other hand, treats Michael as a symbol of the Church, in Dictionnaire de Spiritualité (Paris, 1937–), s.v. “Anges,” by Joseph Duhr (1:584) [hereafter cited as DS].Google ScholarThe Glossa Ordinaria likewise focuses on the vicissitudes of the church but with no mention of Michael's “identity” (PL 114:732). For additional interpretations of Michael, see Prigent. Due to Michael's importance in Jewish thought, his presence in Apocalypse 12:7 has caused some modern expositors to see a Jewish hand in this section of the text (Prigent, pp. 130, 132).Google Scholar

62. The exact dating of the war in heaven was not undisputed. According to Revard, “the first references to Satan raising battle in Heaven appear in hexaemeral poems of the early Christian period” (p. 129)Google Scholar, while “one of the most detailed descriptions of the war in heaven occurs in a commentary attributed to Ambrose [PL 17:959; apparently an inaccurate citation]” (p. 110 n. 5).Google ScholarEspecially influential was Gregory the Great who, in Revard's words, “went so far as to connect the war in Heaven of [Apocalypse] verses 7–9 with Satan's original war of rebellion, the war in which the archangel Michael expelled him from Heaven, and with the final battle on earth in which he is yet to be overcome" (p. 134).Google ScholarSee Gregory, , XL Homiliarum in evangelia libri duo, Homil. 34 (PL 76:1251). However, the same author (Revard, p. 134) suggests that it was the poets rather than the theologians who most frequently repeated Gregory's connection between the war in Apocalypse 12 and the original war in heaven. A more exhaustive examination of the medieval sources, especially of medieval Apocalypse commentaries, would perhaps lead us to modify this judgment. In any case, there can be no doubt that Juan de Segovia, a theologian, clearly interpreted Apocalypse 12:7 and the following as a description of the war in heaven which antedated the creation of Adam and Eve. In constrast to Revard, Russell (Satan, p. 194 n. 19), contends that Jerome was among the first to place the war at the time of Satan's fall (in other words, prior to the creation of Adam), while Gregory the Great “dated the deed at the end of the world.” In Russell's view, it was not until Peter Lombard that Jerome's chronology replaced Gregory's. The dating of the war in heaven is clearly also related to the dating of Satan's fall which, after Origen, was commonly thought to have occurred before the creation of the material world.Google ScholarOn this point, see Kelly, Henry A., The Devil, Demonology and Witchcraft: The Development of Christian Beliefs in Evil Spirits, rev. ed. (New York, 1974), pp. 17, 36. For more on these complicated questions, see DS, s.v., “Anges,” by Joseph Duhr. Finally, it should be noted that some medieval exegetes, such as Ambriosius Artpertus, Expositio in Apocalypsiu (Corpus Christianorum Continvatio Mediaevalis 27:455), maintained that the conflict described in Apocalypse 12 would continue throughout history.Google Scholar

63. McGinn, , Visions, p. 31, notes: “No one would want to deny that apocalypticism is frequently literature of consolation, but it would be erroneous to think it is only that” (my emphasis).Google Scholar

64. Luman, Richard, “A Conciliar Suggestion,” in The Impact of the Church upon Its Culture: Reappraisals of the History of Christianity, ed. Brauer, Jerald C. (Chicago, 1968), pp. 129, 142–143.Google Scholar